Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

  • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Here is the definition used. Re-assess your understanding, and be specific. I can’t give you a cognizant answer unless we’re on the same page.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harm

    In regards to homosexuality being considered harmful, there’s a big difference between people’s considerations and objective fact, that nuance is important.

    Harm to oneself born of one’s own intolerance is no ones issue but their own.

    Intolerance is self harm.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ok. I have re-read your definition again. I can work with this.

      A group of people have observed a behavior that I may or may not have mentioned. This group of people has determined this behavior to be harmful. Should they censor it, or not? After you provide me with a definitive yes/no answer, I will tell you what that behavior was.

      I don’t know why you keep calling this “nuance”; it is not nuance. You are using that word incorrectly.

      • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is their determination objectively verifiably true or the projection of a feeling?

        Does this behaviour harm them because of their own intolerance of this behaviour alone?

        The answers to these questions create contextual nuance.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The behavior does impact the group in an objective, verifiable way, and they have concluded that this impact is, indeed, harmful.

          • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s not what I asked. Two questions, two answers. I agree they believe they are harmed.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              You provided no evidence that “Judaism” causes objective harm, but you allowed for all religion to be censored. Your model is inconsistent.

              • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If you want to stop being disingenuous we can continue our discussion, but I assume your response is born of belligerence. I wish you the best of luck.

                If this isn’t the case, reply with your answers to my two questions and I can continue when I get the chance.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I reject the premise of your question that harm can possibly be “objective”, so my answer would be “no. The harm is subjective”. Applying your model, “subjective” harm does not qualify for censorship, but again, I reject your premise that harm can ever be considered objective fact. Your model thus suggests that nothing should be censored, but you have indicated that Judaism is one objectively harmful issue that should be censored.

                  So, I want to know what “objective” harm you believe Judaism causes.

                  • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You didn’t answer the questions. Two questions, two answers.

                    If you want to keep being intellectually disingenuous and dodging like you play dodgeball, I’ll just accept you can’t without accepting that I was able to determine you were making a disingenuous attempt to make me say something that could be construed as ‘censoring all religion’.

                    But my logic is solid and the questions remain posed. You showed your hand that the answer was Nazi’s referring to Judaism so I’ll finish the job for you.

                    Is their determination objectively verifiably true or the projection of a feeling?

                    The projection of a feeling.

                    Does this behaviour harm them because of their own intolerance of this behaviour alone?

                    Yes.

                    Therefore their harm is self inflicted through bigotry. And you agree with me.

          • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m going to risk assuming that your silence is due to the understanding that my logic is solid and that both functional and self inflicted harm born of bigotry are logically determinable with adequate contextual nuance.

            If this isn’t the case, reply with your answers to my two questions and I can continue when I get the chance.